One of the controversial verses of Quran is certainly the verse 34 of Al-Nissa, which, seemingly, appears to suggest using physical violence against women who are in an emotional state of disobedience to their spouse.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
4:34
"Men are in charge of women by what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."صدق الله العلي العظيم
The main idea of this verse, I believe, is to determine the relationship between the men and women by explaining that men have dominance over women due to the advantages given to them by God and due to the fact that men support women financially.
Having lived in Canada for some years now, I fully appreciate the significance of feminism (meaning equal rights and opportunities) in the western world as I don't find it contradictory to the fact that women and men have fundamental differences in their nature, which lead to varied needs and dependencies. Historically, women have always lived under the umbrella of men's protection in terms of their security, safety and financial needs. This dependency becomes particularly evident at time of wars, dealing with environmental risks as well as making a living. Although it is true that today women can be financially independent in many countries and they are even more successful than men, most women feel more comfortable with the idea of being financially provided for. In other words, Women, in most cases, do not prefer to earn a livelihood if they do not have to, self-improvement aspects of a job aside.
In comparison, while women seem to be psychologically dependent on men, men are physiologically relying on women. That is why we can see more single moms than single fathers. Women show a tendency to replace their spouse with their children. Judging from life experience, I believe men and women equally need the opposite gender to evolve to their full capacity that is embedded in every human nature.
That said, it appears men have an innate feature that when they provide for a woman they expect an exclusive commitment in return with regard to their sexual and physical intimacy needs. That is to say, men by their nature assume a dominance over their mate. This serves as a foundation for their entire psyche and of course it works equally the same for women as well. The significance of this psychological interdependence becomes clear when it is shaken by one side cheating over the other be it in a marriage or not. The extreme reactions that most people show in response to these situations range from personal emotional drama to committing a serious crime against the partner. There are everyday news and movies to evidence this fact of life.
The main controversy however, comes later in this verse where it is stated that when a woman shows disrespect and unwillingness toward her partner (reason is unknown) then Quran instructs a sequence of actions which starts with talking her off the mood, then if that doesn't work, abandoning her in bed is the next step and finally if either one does not help the situation it appears that Quran says striking is an option which means hitting by hand. The verse further emphasizes that when the woman seems to behave properly there should be no further follow up on this matter.
I personally have serious reservations to take the Arabic verb "Zaraba" as hitting in this context. That is mainly because we can think of quite a number of arguments against this interpretation. Namely, the woman may have rightfully some reasons not to be willing toward her partner. Secondly, I doubt if physical violence could help anyone's temperament in such situation. And thirdly, it is not conceivable to set a punishment without exact details that would be unprecedented in Quran. Lastly, if physical supremacy of men is meant to be the final solution, it will be contradictory to the next verse 4:35 in which a biding arbitration by a representative from each side is ordered as the ultimate resort to settle lasting family disputes.
Searching Quran for the different meanings of "Zaraba" we come across to three distinct applications.
- Meaning to give an example in verses : 2:26, 13:17, 14:24, 14:45, 16:75, 16:76,........
- Meaning to hit by hand in verses : 7:60, 7:160, 37;93, 38:44, 38:44.
- Meaning figuratively to travel, to cast, to cover in verses : 2;273, 3:156, 4;101, 5;106, 20:77, 18:11, 2:61, 43:17 and 43:58.
It is a huge relief to see this verb is used to mean other than hitting. That is why I am inclined to believe that "Zaraba" in this case is meant to travel or to leave the woman alone which I think in real life is the most practical temporary remedy for this situation. I admit however, that we can not find a similar context in Quran in which "Zaraba" is explicitly used to mean moving out. Nevertheless, we can always ask ourselves which meaning is closer to God's satisfaction. This way, I will have no hesitation that interpreting "Zaraba" figuratively to mean travel or move out will be the best fit in this case.
At the end of the day, we can always perceive Quran in line with God's satisfaction or we can read it word for word to support the desires of our ego and to pursue our personal interests in the name of religion. Today, a suicide-bomber or an ISIS Jihadi. for example, would claim that he is fighting for God, to the best of his knowledge. The truth of the matter is. there is only a fine line between the two intentions which can only be seen in the light of a pure and guided heart. Nevertheless, once these intents are materialised, their outcome are incomparable and easy to differentiate.
Finally, this discussion may also demonstrate the fact that in the absence of the Prophet, the only legitimate authority for interpretation of Quran, we are left with hadith and personal inspiration, both of which seem to be relative and indefinite despite being extremely helpful. This will lead us to a very practical conclusion that any human understanding of holy scriptures are merely personal understandings which can not be regarded as God's orders. It does not matter whether it is based on years of studying religious texts or if it is based on personal inspiration.
